REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 


First Church of Christ, Scientist 


DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


DIVINITY SCHOOL 
LIBRARY 


REPORT 


OF THE 


BOARD OF TRUSTEES 


OF 


irst Church of Christ, Scientist, 


OF 


NEW YORK CITY 


NOVEMBER 4, 1909 


REPORT 


OF THE 


BOARD OF TRUSTEES 


OF 


First Church of Christ, Scientist, 


OF 
NEW YORK CITY. 


é 


Containing that portion of said Report which 
was both read and approved at the Special 
Meeting, of Church Members and ‘Regular 
Attendants, held in the Church Edifice, | 
West 96th Street, New York City, on Thurs- 
day, November 4, 1909, at two o'clock in 


the afternoon. 


_ Aghs Sch.R. 
J bbs AL, La L379; ee 
. Fs2z7h 


INTRODUCTION. 


In the hope of removing whatever obstacles may lie 
in the way of the return of this church to the enjoyment 
of that peace and growth which belong to the children 
of God, the Board of Trustees beg leave to submit the 
results of their inquiry to you, after more than a month 
of tireless labor in arriving at the facts and conclusions 


which are herewith set forth. 


PALSY 23 


During the last week of September, 1909, all the mem- 
bers of the Board of Trustees, of First Church of Christ, 
Scientist, New York City, except Mrs. Augusta E. 
Stetson, were requested to confer with the Board of Di- 


rectors of The Mother Church, on September 24th, at 


Boston. 


Mr. Edwin F. Hatfield and Mrs. Isabelle C. Dam 
were unavoidably prevented from complying with the re- 
quest. All the other members of the Board of Trustees 
of this branch church, who had been invited, appeared at 
the time appointed, and were received informally by the 
Board of Directors of The Mother Church. They found 
three other persons present, besides a_ stenographer ; 
namely, Judge Clifford P. Smith, First Reader of The 
Mother Church; Mr. Virgil O. Strickler, and Miss Ella 
G. Young. First and Second Readers, respectively, of 
this branch church. It was stated, among other things, 
by Mr. Archibald McLellan, Chairman of the Board of 
Directors of the Mother Church ; 


1. That the Trustees of this branch church then 
present at Boston had been invited to the conference not 
in an official capacity, but as individuals ; 


2. That an investigation was in progress at Boston, 
and ‘‘ was instituted because of the widespread impression 
obtained by all Christian Scientists throughout the Field, 
that there is something wrong with the teachings and 


P24424 


practices in First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York 
City, and that these teachings and practices differ materi- 
ally from those which obtain in other places ;”” 


3. That no charge nor complaint was then pending 
against any particular person. 


A synopsis of the testimony, said to be before the 
Directors at that time, was then given orally to the Trustees 
of this branch church there present, by Judge Clifford P. 
Smith, First Reader of The Mother Church, on behalf and 
by request of the Board of Directors of The Mother 
Church. The Synopsis contained allegations of a very 
grave character. A copy of the entire evidence was there- 
fore requested by the Trustees who were present, for the 


use of the Board of Trustees of this branch Church. This 


request was not granted. 


Two days after this conference, the Acting Clerk of 
this branch church received the following letter from Mrs. 
Stetson: 


7 West 96th St. 
New York, September 26, 1909. 
Dr. John Franklin Crowell, Acting Clerk, First 
Church of Christ, Scientist, New York 
City: 

Dear Dr. Crowell—To-day I received a let- 
ter signed “J. V. Dittemore, Secretary,’ contain- 
ing enclosures which purport to be copies of find- 
ings and orders by the Board of Directors of The 
First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston 
Mass. 

As a member of the Board of Trustees of 
First Church of Christ, Sctentist, New York 
City, I request that you call a meeting of that 


9 


~ 


Board at the earliest possible time, in order that 

the documents referred to may be laid before 

the Board for such action as may be proper. 
Faithfully yours, 


(Signed) AUGUSTA E. STETSON. 


This request was complied with, and a meeting of the 
Board was held on October Ist 1909. Mr. Strickler and 
Miss Young were present, in addition to every member of 
the Board except Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson. At that meet- 
ing the following documents were laid before the Board of 
Trustees: 


September 28, 1909. 
To the Board of Trustees, First Church of 
Christ Scientist, New York City: 

I hand you hereunth a letter, and the en- 
closures therein referred to, dated Boston, Mass., 
Sept. 25, 1909, and purporting to be written on 
behalf of the Christian Science Board of Direc- 
tors. About six weeks ago I was advised by 
those Directors that a charge then pending 
against me had been dismissed. Since which 
time I have had no direct communication from 
them, until the documents herewith handed you 
were received by registered mail on Sunday 
morning, Sept. 26, 1909, I immediately re- 
quested that a meeting of our Board be called to 
hear these documents read, and to take such ac- 
tion as may be proper. As the matter affects 
me mdividually, in a way that may make my 
presence undesirable, if not improper, I am ab- 
senting myself from the meeting. 

I rest in the firm conviction that our Father- 
Mother God will guide your every action—even 
that divine Mind which is now manifested in 


3 


glory in our beloved Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, 
through whom I became acquainted with her 
God—Life, Truth and Love. This God I have 
endeavored to present and to represent to you, 
even as I have heard and seen while following 
my forever Leader, Mary Baker Eddy. 

Let nothing separate you from divine Prin- 
ciple or from your Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, 
who will bring us all into the kingdom of our 
God and His Christ; “But every man in his own 
order; Christ the first-fruits; afterward they 
that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1 Cor. 15:23). 


(Signed) AUGUSTA E. STETSON, C.S. D. 


Tue CHRISTIAN ScIENCE BoarD oF DIRECTORS 
THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, 
Norway, FatmoutH & St. Paur Sts. 


Boston, Mass. 
Office of the Secretary 


September 25, 1909. 
Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson, 7 West 96th Street, 
New Vork, N. Y.: 

Dear Mrs. Stetson—By order of the Board 
of Directors I am sending you herewith a copy 
of the findings and orders concerning yourself 
this day made by them. 

The copy of their action ts sent you in order 
to inform you thereof and in order to admonish 
you concerning .the errors on your part therein 
pointed out. 

The Board directs me to express the hope 
that you will accept this admonition and desist 
from a repetition of the errors which they have 
pointed out. 

Very sincerely, 
(Signed) J. V. DITTEMORE, 
Secretary for the Christian Science Board of 
Directors. 


4 


Saturday, Sept. 25th 1909 
“The Board of Directors of The First Church of 


Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., met pursuant to their 
adjournment of yesterday. Present; all of the Directors. 


“* The Directors took up and considered the case of 
Mrs. Augusta E.. Stetson, a member of this Church and an 
authorized teacher of Christian Science, as presented by her 
statements recently made before the Directors and the testi- 
mony of twenty-five witnesses whose examination was con- 
cluded yesterday; namely, 


Richard P. Verrall Mrs. A. Aikman 

Miss Marion Stephens Hayne Davis 

Amold Blome Harry Fink 

Miss Sarah Hathaway Miss Margaret Duncan 
Miss Jessie Colton Miss A. E. Ensworth 
Mrs. Kate Remer Miss Ida Pope 

Mrs. Margaret Beecher White Arthur Overbury 

Mrs. Mary Freshman Miss Mary Pearson 
Mrs. Amelia Rowbotham Mrs. Anna Holden 
Steuart C. Rowbotham Mrs. Letitia Greene 
Miss Ella Young Miss Mary Pinney 
Miss Sibyl Huse Mrs. Catherine B. Gillpatrick 


V. O. Strickler 


‘* After having carefully considered the evidence, the 
Directors decided and unanimously agreed as follows: 


1. That Mrs. Stetson teaches her students, or those 
with whom she has been holding daily meetings, that the 
branch Church of Christ, Scientist, of which she is a member 
is the only legitimate Christian Science Church in New York 
City; and she teaches her students, or said group of 
students, not to regard the other branches of The Mother 
Church which are in that city as Christian Science Churches. 


5 


2. That a considerable number of the witnesses 
whose testimony the Directors have heard exhibit as Mrs. 
Stetson’s teaching an erroneous sense of Christian Science, 
particularly in regard to the application of Christian Science 
to human needs and conditions; the witnesses whom the 
Directors have heard being with one exception her students 
and being a select body of students chosen by her, or a 
board of which she was a member, to be representative 
practitioners of Christian Science. 


3. That Mrs. Stetson endeavors to exercise a control 
over her students which tends to hinder their moral and 
spiritual growth. 

4. That Mrs. Stetson endeavors to obtrude herself 
upon the attention of her students in such manner as to ‘turn 
their attention away from divine Principle. 


5. That Mrs. Stetson practices and teaches pretend- 
ed Christian Science contrary to the statement thereof in 
“Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” particular- 
ly by treating persons without their request or consent, and 
by teaching a select body of her students to do likewise. 

6. That Mrs. Stetson attempts to control and to in- 
jure persons by mental means; this being utterly contrary to 
the teachings of Christian Science. 

7. That Mrs. Stetson has so strayed from the right 
way as not to be fit for the work of a teacher of Christian 
Science. 

‘* After having considered these facts in view of the 
By-laws of this Church applicable to them, the Directors 
unanimously determined and ordered as follows : 


].--That the card of Mrs. Stetson be removed from 
6 


the Christian Science Journal, and that the trustees of 
the Publishing Society be directed not to advertise her 
as a teacher or practitioner of Christian Science without 
first obtaining the approval of the Directors. 


2.--That Mrs. Stetson’s license or authority to teach 
Christian Science be and it hereby is revoked, and that 
she be and hereby is forbidden to undertake the woxk of 
a teacher of Christian Science until her fitness for such 


work shall have been proved and decided according to 
Article XII, section |, of the By-laws of this Church. 


3.--That in order to inform Mrs. Stetson of the 
action now taken by the Directors and to admonish her 
concerning the things now pointed out by them, the Sec- 
retary of the Board shall send to her by registered mail 
a copy of these findings and orders.” 


The Board of Trustees proceeded at once to the 
consideration of the communication from Mrs. Stetson, in 
the light of what had occurred at the Boston conference, 
held the week previous. It is proper to state, however, 
that no authenticated copy of the foregoing ‘‘ Findings 
and Orders’’ was ever filed with the Board of Trustees 
of this branch church. 


Mrs. Stetson’s communication to the Board contained 
the statement that she absented herself voluntarily from the 
meeting. A member of the Board suggested the propri- 
ety of Mr. Strickler and Miss Young absenting themselves 
from the executive sessions of this Board, while the questions 
submitted in these communications were under considera- 
tion. Mr. Strickler, replying thereto, stated that this pro- 


7 


posal met with his entire approval and that he would stand 
ready to give any information at his command to aid the 
Board in dealing with the matters before them. Miss 
Young stated that she was willing to do what the Board 
of Trustees desired her to do in the matter of withdrawing. 
Mr. Strickler and Miss Young then withdrew from the 
meeting. 

At this same meeting (October Ist) a resolution was 
approved by the Board that the Directors of the Mother 
Church be requested to supply a complete copy of the 
evidence taken in Boston, for the use of the Board of 
Trustees of this branch church in the conduct of this 
inquiry. This resolution was communicated to the Direc- 


tors of The Mother Church in a letter dated October 1, 
1909, which reads as follows : 


October 1, 1909. 
The Chairman of the Board of Directors, The 
First Church of Christ, Scientist, Bos- 
ton, Mass.: 

Gentlemen—On Friday last, when six of 
this Board of Trustees had the pleasure, upon 
your invitation, of meeting the Board of Direc- 
tors of the Mother Church informally in Boston, 
it transpired that a great deal of testimony had 
been taken from some twenty-five of the practi- 
tioners who have been associated with this 
branch church. This testimony, as outlined by 
Judge Smith, appeared to be of a serious nature ; 
but as a bare outline of only some of the testi- 
monies was given by him, you will recall that a 
request was then made for a copy of all the tes- 
timonies. Judge Smith said he would rather not 
let it be given out until further action was de- 


8 


termined upon. Since then, action has been 
taken by your Board, involving one who is not 
only a member of this branch church, but a mem- 
ber of this Board of Trustees. Therefore, hav- 
ing in view our duty in the premises to properly 
consider this matter, we now make request that 
this Board be promptly furnished with copies of 
the examination of and testimony given (in any 
manner) by each and every member of this 
church who was called upon to appear before the 
Directors in the investigation relating to “the 
teachings and practices in First Church of Christ, 
Scientist, New York City,” or im any manner re- 
lating to the teachings and practices of any of 
its members. 

In view of your recent assurance that it 1s 
your desire, as it is surely ours, to come into 
closer understanding with each other, we feel no 
doubt but that you will see the wisdom and 
justice of granting this, under the circumstances, 
most reasonable request. 

Judge Smith said on Friday last, “Let the 
present occasion be taken as an overture made 
on the part of the Directors of the Mother 
Church towards the branch church in New York 
City. Let nothing in the way of formality, or 
form, or anything of that sort, interfere with 
the endeavor to come into closer understanding.” 
Anticipating, therefore, an early and favorable 
response, we are, 


Sincerely yours, 
IETS BOARD OF TRUSTEES (OE 
Hiei CaOnRCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, 
INGE VIVOTCK Cli: 
By (Signed) Edwin F. Hatfield, Chairman. 
John D. Higgins, Clerk. 


9 


This request was not granted, as is shown by their 
reply of October 4th, which reads as follows : 


THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BoARD OF DIRECTORS 
OF 
THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, 
Norway, FarmoutH & St. Pau Sts. 


Boston, Mass. 
Office of the 
Secretary 


October 4, 1909. 
The Board of Trustees of First Church of 
Christ, Scientist, of New York City, 
No. 1 West 96th Street, New York 
City: 

Gentlemen—W e are in receipt of your letter 
of the 1st inst. and regret the attitude which it 
reveals. Your letter seems to indicate that you 
think you have no duty to perform unless tt be 
to review and pass upon the action of this Board. 

You have been informed of certain irregular 
practices of members in your church, disclosed 
by an investigation conducted by this Board, and 
these same facts are as open to you as they were 
to us; moreover, the lamentable conditions which 
exist and which have existed for a long time are 
within the personal knowledge of the Chairman 
of your Board, the two Readers, who are ex- 
officio members thereof, and many other persons 
whom we did not summon. What you should do 
ts to obtain the testimony of these people and 
do your duty. Under the circumstances this 
Board calls upon you to wake up to the serious- 
ness of the situation, make your own investiga- 
tion and act without fear or favor. 

Very respectfully, 
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BOARD Ga 

RECTORS. 

By (Signed) J. V. Dittemore, Secretary. 


10 


On the same day that this letter was received, Oc- 
tober 5th, the Committee appointed to prepare a plan of 
procedure for the inquiry, made its report, based on the 
assumption that Mrs. Stetson, Mr. Strickler and Miss 
Young would absent themselves from the meetings of the 
Board, in accordance with the action taken on the day the 
Committee on Procedure was appointed. 


The Inquiry was accordingly commenced on this 
basis, and all the former Reading Rooms practitioners were 
requested to appear before the Board of Trustees, at the 
Board Room at 4 o'clock P.M. on October 12th. 
They all responded at the time and place appointed and 
were informed of the inquiry and of the wishes of the 
Board of Trustees in regard thereto, by the reading of the 
following document : 


ANNOUNCEMENT. 


“Recent events have imposed upon his Board the 
duty of inquiring into the conditions and practices that have 
obtained in this branch of The First Church of Christ, 
Scientist, Boston, Mass. 


“Tt is requested that during this inquiry you will not 
discuss with each other, or with any other persons, either 
the fact of the inquiry being in progress, the facts out of 
which it arises, or what would be proper evidence in such 
an inquiry. You are requested also not to discuss the 
proper action of the Board, but to keep constantly in mind 
the fact that there is only One Mind, manifested always in 
each and every idea of God, and that no other mind exists 
or can appear or express itself through any one connected 
with this inquiry. Also that each person concerned in this 

11 


inquiry is a manifestation of that Mind and is governed by 
divine Principle. 

‘* Without prejudicing his testimony, any witness may 
declare the spiritual facts, even when recounting the oc- 
currences under investigation, thus aiding the Board to as- 
certain the occurrences and to administer any discipline 
found just and proper, without unduly fixing in conscious- 
ness any falsities that may have been believed and declared 
by anyone heretofore. 

‘* You will be questioned, not only as to occurrences, 


but regarding the teachings of Mrs. Augusta E Stetson 
and Reverend Mary Baker Eddy. 


“You will all await the further call of the Board, each 
in the room formerly occupied as a practitioner’s office in 
the church, Miss Colton and Mr. Verrall using the rooms 
on the mezzanine floor which they formerly occupied. 
You will each be called to appear individually before the 
Board. While you await this call, the following books 
are commended to your careful consideration: The 
Bible, Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures, by 
Mary Baker Eddy, Discoverer and Founder of Christian 
Science, and the Manual of The Mother Church.” 


Thereupon, Mr. Strickler protested in writing against 
the Board’s proceeding with the inquiry in the absence from 
the meetings of both Readers. In order to get the benefit, 
at the outset, of all that Mr. Strickler might have to say, he 
was Called as the first witness, on Tuesday, October 12th. 
Notwithstanding the protest previously made, Mr. Strickler 
appeared before the Board and began to give his testimony. 
Before the meeting of the following day, and before the 
conclusion of Mr. Strickler’s testimony, a second written 

12 


protest was made by Mr. Strickler against the further pro- 
gress of this inquiry, during the absence of both Readers 
from the meetings of the Board. In order that there might 
be no doubt whatever as to the regularity of the proceed- 
ings, it was deemed best to call a meeting of the Board of 
Trustees to consider this matter. Such a meeting was held 
on October | 4th, all the members of the Board being pre- 
sent, including Mr. Strickler and Miss Young, the ex-officio 
members. ‘Thereupon the Board of Trustees appointed a 
Committee of Inquiry composed of all the members of the 
Board except Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson, and the two Read- 
ers of this branch church who have no nght to vote at 
Board meetings, even though present. “The Committee thus 
appointed was composed of the following persons : 


Edwin F. Hatfield, Chairman 
John Franklin Crowell, Secretary 
Mrs. Suzanne S. Thomas 
Mrs. Isabelle C. Dam 
Joseph B. Whitney 
Adolph Rusch 
Wm. H. Taylor 
John D. Higgins 


Something should here be said regarding the legality, 
as well as the propriety of this course. As to the propriety, 
the members of the Board of Trustees were unanimous in 
desiring to conduct the inquiry, without either Mrs. Stetson, 
Mr. Strickler, or Miss Young being present during the ex- 
amination of the other witnesses, and yet so as to procure 
all testimony that would lead to a just and nghteous judge- 
ment. The course pursued accomplished both these pur- 
poses. Mrs. Stetson and Mr. Strickler were both fully 


13 


heard at the beginning of the inquiry. The Committee 
then had the benefit of all Mr. Strickler wished to say before 


proceeding with examination of the other witnesses. 


As to the legality ; the by-laws of this branch church 
vest in the Board of Trustees, and in the First Reader, 
co-ordinate rights, (Article XI, section 1), in the adminis- 
tration of the church discipline. Either the First Reader 
or the Board of Trustees may initiate the action with a 
view to discipline. Mr. Strickler had been in possession 
for many months of the chief alleged facts upon which 
this inquiry was initiated by the Board of Trustees on 
October Ist, only a few days after the Board was officially 
informed of the things complained of. Having initiated 
the inquiry, the Board of Trustees had the night to prose- 
cute it according to its judgment. Mr. Strickler mentioned 
some of the alleged facts to a member of the Board of 
Trustees in August. That member thereupon informed 
Mr. Strickler that the matter was a proper one for him 
(Mr. Strickler) to bring officially to the attention of the 
Board of Trustees. Mr. Strickler did not then bring the 
matter to the attention of the Board of Trustees of this 
branch church, though he attended two meetings of the 
Board after that conversation, prior to the time when the 
Directors of the Mother Church moved in the matter. 
Indeed Mr. Strickler has never brought the matter to the 
attention of the Board of Trustees officially. It came 
before the Board by Mrs. Stetson’s initiative, taken Sep- 
tember 26th, the day she received the letter above referred 
to from the Secretary of the Christian Science Board of 
Directors. 


Before the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry, 
uu 


the Board of Trustees considered carefully a phase of the 
pending question which was of prime importance, though 
of a prelimimary character, namely, the question of the res- 
pective jurisdictions of The Mother Church, and of this 
branch church in respect to the matters under considera- 
tion. While the Board of Trustees was duly considering 
this grave question, not previously raised in the history of 
this branch church, accusations that the Board was derelict 
in or oblivious to its duty, were heard on various sides, and 
from sources which might have been expected to manifest 
a more Scientific attitude. These accusations were voiced 
even from the witness chair by persons who are within the 
jurisdiction of this branch church, and who were at that 
time before the constituted authontties, sitting in their official 
character, and therefore representing our beloved Leader, 
Mary Baker Eddy, and responsible to her and to God for 
the mghteousness of their conduct and judgment. The 
giving of due consideration to this question of jurisdiction, 
and to certain constitutional questions connected therewith 
has enabled the Board and the Committee of Inquiry to 
see more clearly the way of duty and to walk therem, and 
thus to avoid trespassing upon the nghts of the constituted 
authorities of The Mother Church, and of individual mem- 
bers of this branch church. This consideration was so 
helpful to the Board and to the Committee in prosecuting 
this imquiry, that a concise statement of this phase of the 
matter seems to be proper at this point. 

In her unfailing and ever watchful wisdom, our 
beloved Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, has organized her 
Church so that The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in 
Boston, Massachusetts, has complete and perfect authority 
in the jumisdiction defined for it in the Christian Science 


15 


Manual. Branch churches are also perfectly self-governing 
within the jurisdiction granted to them by the same Church 


Manual and by the same authority ; namely, Mary Baker 
Eddy. 


It is as imperative that the branch churches protect 
their rights and perform their duties within the realm 
marked out in the Manual for them, as it is that The 
Mother Church officers protect the rights and perform the 
duties imposed upon them. In this way only can the 
Kingdom of God and of His Christ be effectually es- 
tablished among men. For either of these authorities to 
neglect the proper performance of their respective duties, or 
to trespass upon the province of the other, would be diso- 
bedience to our Beloved Leader on the part of Officers, 
Directors, Trustees, or Readers, whether of The Mother 
Church or of a branch church. 


The duty and the spiritual benefit of obedience are the 
same in both cases, and the consequences of disobeying are 
inevitable; whatever may seem to be the relative importance 
of the duties imposed upon one or the other authority. As 
this is a branch church, the supreme question confronting its 
constituted authorities and also its members is, first, to gain 
a perfect understanding of, and then faithfully to perform its 
own duties irrespective of what other authorities or persons 
may or may not do. 


Branch churches in their corporate capacity must pre- 
suppose the faithful performance of duty by The Mother 
Church officials in matters concerning only individual mem- 
bers of The Mother Church. Each church must do its 
own duty in the light of the facts laid before it, and of its 

16 


own understanding of our beloved Leader’s teaching and 
practice of Christian Science. 


The Directors of The Mother Church have no au- 
thority to review the action of a branch church in a matter 
falling within the jurisdiction: of the branch church. The 
constituted authorities of the branch church have no nght 
to review the action of the Directors of the Mother 
Church, in a matter falling within the jurisdiction of that 
church. 


Branch churches have no jurisdiction over teaching. 
Therefore, the question whether any person shall or shall 
not teach Christian Science cannot properly come before a 


branch Church. 


The authorities of this branch church are bound to 
judge according to the evidence before them, and in ac- 
cordance with the law as laid down in the Bible, the 
Manual, Science and Health, and in Mrs. Eddy’s other 
writings. In the formation of this judgment, the findings 
and orders of the authorities of The Mother Church cannot 
properly be taken into account, for judging either in ac- 
cordance therewith or contrary thereto. The authorities of 
The Mother Church have no right or power to interfere 
with the affairs falling within the jurisdiction of a branch 
church. Neither have the individuals who happen at the 
moment to be the authorities of The Mother Church 
any such nght, either as individuals or as officials. This 
is clear from Article XXIII, Sections 1, 3 and 10 of The 
Mother Church Manual. 


Article XXIII, Section 1, on “‘ Local Self Govern- 
ment,” reads in part as follows: ‘‘ The Mother Church 


17 


of Christ, Scientist, shall assume no general official control 
of other churches, and it shall be controlled by none other. 
Each church of Christ, Scientist, shall have its own form 
of government.” 


Article XXIII, Section 3, forbids a branch church to 
adopt the Manual of The Mother Church, thus compelling 
them to adopt such by-laws for their own self government 
as may be necessary or desirable to supplement the pro- 
visions of The Mother Church Manual, applicable to 


branch churches. 


Article XXIII, Section 10, on‘‘ No Interference,” says 
in part as follows: ‘‘In Christian Science, each branch 
church shall be distinctly democratic in its government, 
and no individual and no other church shall interfere with 
its affairs.” 


Having in view these general principles regarding the 
respective jurisdictions of The Mother Church and of 
branch churches and the rules of the Manual applicable to 
the matters under consideration, the members of this branch 
church can more easily comprehend the report of the 
Committee of Inquiry, now to be submitted as the 
Report of the Board of Trustees. 


18 


REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF 
INQUIRY. 


First CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, 
New York City. 


This Committee was appointed by virtue of the reso- 
lutions approved by the Board of Trustees at a meeting 
held October 14, 1909, all the members of the Board 
being present; also Mr. Virgil O. Strickler and Miss 
Ella G. Young, First and Second Readers, respectively, 
of this branch church. The Committee organized on the 
day of its appointment, by electing Mr. Edwin F. Hat- 
field as Chairman, and Dr. John Franklin Crowell as 
Secretary. The Committee has not ceased since that 
day to devote itself to the duties that devolved upon it; 
though the members of the Committee were all preoccu- 
pied with their personal and business problems, it was 
found possible to hold two sessions daily except Sun- 
day. Some sessions were held on Sunday, there being 
in all thirty-five sessions, during which over 1,000 pages 
of typewritten testimony were taken. Every member of 
the Committee was present at practically all the sessions, 
except Mrs. Suzanne S. Thomas, whose residence is not 
in New York City, and whose family ties imposed upon 
her certain duties of an imperative character during the 

19 


progress of the inquiry, which made it impossible for 
Mrs. Thomas to attend the sessions regularly. 


The Committee is unanimous in the following state- 
ment of facts, deduced from the evidence before it: 


I. First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York 
City, is a loyal branch of The Mother Church, and is an 
organic part of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, 
founded by Mary Baker Eddy, and of which she is the 
perpetual head. 


IJ. Error cannot work through any person to sep- 
arate this branch church from the Mother Church, or to 
separate loyal members of this branch church from our 
beloved Leader or from anyone who is conquering error 
and manifesting the Christ Mind more and more. 


III. This branch church derives its existence and 
also its rights from the action of Mary Baker Eddy, and 
recognizes her as supreme in spiritual leadership. 


IV. This branch church has grown, in a little more 
than two decades, from a small beginning to its present 
proportions, notwithstanding the fact that a number of 
Mrs. Erddy’s students, who were members at its organiza-. 
tion or in the early days of its existence, withdrew from 
its membership, and formed other branch churches in this 
city, while this branch church was still young in years, 
few in numbers, and apparently feeble in power. 


V. The same character of opposition which mani- 
fested itself toward this church through those who with- 
drew from its membership and formed other branch 
churches in this city, subsequently manifested itself in 


20 


other parts of the country and has widened and inten- 
sified itself up to this present time. Proof of this fact is 
in the possession of this branch church. 


VI. This opposition persistently formulated and 
assiduously circulated false reports regarding this branch 
church, Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson, and other of its mem- 
bers. This circulation of falsehoods still continues. 


VII. These reports were given currency, even in 
Christian Science circles. When directed against Mrs. 
Stetson they included charges of personal ambition, per- 
sonal control, malpractice, hypnotism, mesmerism, etc., 
even to the extent of disloyalty to the Cause and to Mary 
Baker Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian 
Science, by entertaining the expectation of robbing Mrs. 
Eddy of her position as the Leader of Christian Science. 
When directed against this church, these reports were 
more vague, but were of a corresponding character, such 
as love of material wealth and power, ambition to over- 
shadow The Mother Church, subjection to personal 
control, mesmerism, hypnotism, etc. These reports peri- 
odically re-embodied themselves during the past two 
decades, varying from time to time, but never losing their 
false character of holding Mrs. Stetson, this branch 
church, or some of its members in error, more or less grave. 

VIII. These false reports were engendered and 
developed by malicious animal magnetism, which is the 
opposite and the opponent of Christian Science, and they 
were circulated by persons who did not properly protect 
themselves against aggressive mental suggestion, as en- 
joined by our beloved Leader in The Mother Church 
Manual, Article VIII, Section 6. 


21 


IX. The widespread circulation of these unwar- 
ranted reports throughout the Christian Science Field, has 
kept many persons away from this branch church who 
would otherwise have come to its services and extended 
the right hand of Christian Science fellowship to its 
members. 


X. Loyal to our beloved Leader and to the 
Truth of Being, this branch church and its loyal members 
have fought the good fight of faith, and have not despaired 
of the day when the members of this branch church will 
all be recognized by their brothers of other Christian 
Science churches, as made in the image and likeness of 
God, and as manifesting the Christ Mind, instead of in 
subjection to error in its aggressive and hideous forms. 


XI. It is the purpose of this branch church to obey 
the by-laws that have recently been promulgated, also all 
by-laws that may hereafter be lawfully promulgated, even 
as it has heretofore obeyed the existing by-laws, as under- 
stood by the constituted authorities of this branch church. 


XII. Although this inquiry included general con- 
ditions prevailing in this branch church, it soon became 
apparent that the conditions alleged in evidence taken 
were almost entirely confined to what had been done and 
said in practitioners’ meetings, and to their effect upon 
the general body of the church. For this reason the hear- 
ings were preeminently occupied with the part played by 
the persons directly participating in these meetings. 

XIII. This assemblage of practitioners appears 


never to have had any formal authorization. It simply 
grew up out of the common desire of persons similarly 


22 


occupied to benefit by regular association for mutual im- 
provement, and we find that there is quite general agree- 
ment among witnesses as to what took place in these meet- 
ings, but that there is a fundamental difference in the atti- 
tude of witnesses toward statements made and occurrences 
that took place at said meetings. During the past year 
Mrs. Stetson made numerous mental defences against 
hostile manifestations toward this branch church, as well 
as toward herself. With regard to these defences, prac- 
titioners appear to have grouped themselves into two 
classes. Nineteen practitioners consider them as justifiable, 
defensive declarations in handling error. Four or five 
now appear to have regarded this kind of defence as 
amounting to malpractice upon persons whose names were 
mentioned. To the smaller group of witnesses the use 
of persons’ names without knowledge or consent is the dis- 
tinguishing mark of malpractice; the larger group insists 
that self-defence against mental aggression of known per- 
sonal agency is a legitimate and indispensable method of 
maintaining their position against mental assassination and 
as efficient practitioners in Christian Science. The evi- 
dence plainly discloses that Mrs. Stetson’s teaching and 
practice were clear on the fundamental differences be- 
tween treatment and self-defence against aggressive mental 
malpractice. 


XIV. AI practitioners agree that the treatment 
of a person in whose relations to them the aggressive men- 
tal attitude is wanting is always conditioned upon the 
person’s knowledge or consent, and that unless this con- 
senting condition is present, the attempt is malpractice. 
This has been their uniform teaching. 


28 


XV. This Committee finds, therefore, that there 
are these two conceptions extant in this church of what 
constitutes proper self-defence in the handling of error. 
A large majority of the witnesses called are positive in 
their statements :— 


(1) That the use of names of absentees was con- 
fined to the handling of aggressive mental suggestion in 
the effort to defend this branch church organization and 
its members against malpractice from without its fold. 


(2) That in no case where mental aggression was 
wanting, were the names of persons ever used by Mrs. 
Stetson in handling error in these meetings. Nor did she 
teach such uses. On the contrary, she taught that such 
use of names would be unwarranted invasions of the men- 
talities of innocent persons, and hence malpractice. Al- 
though one or two of the witnesses testified that the aggres- 
sive mental relation was wrongly assumed by Mrs. Stet- 
son to exist, a majority of witnesses agreed that Mrs. 
Stetson had ample knowledge of aggressive mental sug- 
gestions, attacks or hostile acts on the part of persons 
where names were taken up by her in defence of this 
branch church and of herself. In view of the widespread 
hostility generally pervading the Field, resulting from 
misrepresentations regarding this branch church, and the 
activity of disaffected ex-members of the church, the fact 
of aggressive mental attitude was placed beyond dispute. 


XVI. We find that Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson has 
not manifested resentment nor malice toward any of the 
Directors or Officers of The Mother Church or the Pub- 
lishing Society, or toward any other person. 


24 


XVII. We find that Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson has 
manifested in a marked degree the divine love enjoined 
by Jesus Christ, and by our beloved Leader, which loves 
enemies, prays for those that despitefully use and perse- 
cute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely, 


for Christ’s sake. 


XVIII. Personal control, as alleged in our hear- 
ings, appears in most complaints to amount to nothing more 
than advice given against or in favor of courses of con- 
duct, acts or relations that were deemed prejudicial or 
otherwise to the individual’s welfare. The habit had 
grown, upon the other hand, among some, of bringing 
to Mrs. Stetson such personal matters as had no reason- 
able ground for any proper claim to her attention. Prac- 
titioners are repeatedly appealed to for advice in domestic 
and business affairs, and acting on such advice is some- 
times characterized as “personal control.’’ In the treat- 
ment of patients, such cases have been reported as advising 
persons to leave their employers, on the ground that the 
relation stood in the way of the person’s spiritual safety 
or of the patient’s recovery. In other cases, it was alleged 
of some that they were not entirely free in selecting their 
places of abode, because of being warned against asso- 
‘ciating with others who were opposed to the teachings of 
Christian Science, or were known to be disloyal to this 
church. Several objected to the rule which discouraged 
absences or lateness at practitioners’ meetings as being 
personal control. There were a few complaints at not 
feeling free to visit other churches in this city during times 
of service in our own church. Finally, there was the 
allegation that undue influence was attempted, although 


26 


the allegations are not wholly in accord with statements 
in other parts of testimony given. 


XIX. Practically all of the cases of alleged con- 
trol were not regarded as objectionable at the time, but 
appear to have been so viewed later. The attitude of 
the complainer, in probably no individual case, amounted 
to an abdication of personal responsibility by reason of 
any attempt at control, of which the facts are known. 
On the contrary, the net weight of evidence is preeminently 
to the effect that so-called control by practitioners and by 
Mrs. Stetson was welcomed rather than resisted. To per- 
sons of spiritual discernment, the intuitive foresight of the 
competent practitioner, balanced by common sense in re- 
gard to human matters, has undoubtedly had the effect 
in this church of developing the moral fibre and strength- 
ening the moral force of individual character. Instances 
of actual personal control are comparatively insignificant 
in proportion to the advantages derived from the mental 
and moral co-operation of practitioner and patient, or of 
teacher and student in this church. 


XX. This church has always borne its share of 


the burden of establishing and extending the Cause of 
Christian Science in this City and State. 


Whatever its shortcomings may have been or are 
now, it has not sulked in its tents when the enemies of 
the Truth made attack. It has neither been niggard with 
its energies nor its resources in defending its fellow work- 
ers under prosecution for exercising the rights and liberties 
of the Sons of God in the healing ministry. Notably, as 
its official records show, it has contributed liberally to such 


26 


expensive prosecutions as the White Plains case, in which 
Mr. John C. Lathrop, of Second Church of Christ, Scien- 
tist, New York City, was the defendant in one case, and 
John M. Goodwin in the other; also more recently to ex- 
pensive litigation in a neighboring portion of New Jersey, 
where the local membership was ill prepared to bear the 
burden alone. 


XXI. This defensive service extended to the halls 
of the State Legislature, to which, whenever occasion re- 
quired, men and women from among our membership were 
ready to give unsparing efforts to guarantee to Christian 
Scientists their Constitutional rights as God-fearing citi- 
zens of this State and nation. The battles fought in legis- 
lative committees by representatives of this branch church 
were fought in behalf of the entire Field, because of the 
lead which this State has long taken in legislative progress 
on new issues such as are raised by the advent of a new-old 
religious power in the life of the people. Not boastingly, 
therefore, but rejoicing in the privilege of service, has this 
branch church caused public opinion to respect its voice 
in demanding the recognition of the nights of religious 
worship and spiritual workers in Christian Science. 


XXII. In the relations of the membership of this 
church with nearby churches in Christian Science, the 
measure of fellowship, according to evidence presented, 
has been somewhat limited by the fact that, to no incon- 
siderable extent has the membership of other local branch 
churches been made up of persons who, for reasons deemed 
sufficient to themselves, have withdrawn from this church. 
Where those reasons were of a protesting character, the 
conditions of further fellowship were not entirely favorable 


27 


on account of the attitude of outgoing members. Finally, 
there is no doubt that estrangements of membership from 
this church have contributed a considerable contingent of 
disaffected brethren to the other branch churches of greater 
New York and vicinity. Under the circumstances, what- 
ever the causes may have been, it is in evidence that the 
progress of Christian fellowship was from this particular 
source not generally strengthened. 


XXIII. Among the complaints alleged for with- 
drawals of disaffected persons, were criticisms of teach- 
ing, undue personal control, favoritism, and similar repre- 
sentations of an unofficial character, which were never 
brought to the attention of the authorities by anyone will- 
ing to vouch for them as charges. There is probably no 
large religious congregation where similar conditions are 
not constantly present. It must needs be that offences 
come, and where the standard of spiritual growth and the 
requirements of individual effort are such as to demand 
little for self but much for the Cause, there is apt to be 
a falling away where faith and strength are not vital 
enough to hold the members in unity of purpose and 
spiritual power. 


XXIV. We find, therefore, that it has been always 
assumed that every member of this branch church has had 
ample work within the folds of its own body to occupy 
the attention of anyone desiring to grow. For that reason, 
occasional visits to other church services were discouraged. 
Instead of being a fault to discourage fellowship of this 
particular character, general religious judgment would no 
doubt regard it as a proof of fidelity to the vows of mem- 
bership. 


XXV. In more particular respects, one of the chief 
complaints is that the members of this church have been 
taught that this is the only legitimate Christian Science 
Church in New York City. The denials of this allegation 
compare with the affirmations of it as about four to one. 
The actual relations likewise disprove the truth of the 
claim that such is the view accepted in general among our 
members. On the contrary, there could be no such 
measure of good will as actually exists, if such a view as 
that were current in the members’ conception of relations 
with other churches. “The Committee therefore finds that 
any such allegations affecting church relations have not 
been sustained. 


XXXVI. In the testimony taken by this Commit- 
tee a class of allegations occurs of a rather different char- 
acter from those involving malpractice, personal control and 
relations to other churches. These allege the existence of 
wrongful attitudes towards human relations, particularly 
the marriage relation, the parental relation and the rela- 
tions of the sexes generally. In teaching the spiritual 
precepts of the Christian Scriptures, emphasis has been laid 
upon certain aspects of the human relations with a dis- 
quieting effect upon some hearers. But it is impossible 
to teach Christian Science without some such attendant 
effects. Indeed, the rule in Christian Science which must 
govern the efforts of individuals to spiritualize their char- 
acters and purify their relations, requires that they emerge 
out of the consciousness occupied with the minding of the 
flesh which leads to death, and into that minding of the 
spirit which demonstrates life eternal. 


XXVII. We find that the teachings relating to 


29 


the human relations, as such teaching has been given in 
practitioners’ meetings, have not been in any essential re- 
spect different from those presented in the Chapter on 
Marriage in “Science and Health with Key to the Scrip- 
tures” by our beloved Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, and 
in other writings of hers, in her books and periodical 
articles. There is no evidence presented that Mrs. Stet- 
son’s teaching to her classes, in her public addresses in the 
Church, or in her associations with the congregation, has 
departed from Christian Science teachings, nor has her 
influence been anything other than an encouragement to 
the moral and spiritual improvement of men and women 
as individuals in their dutiful relations one with another 
under rightful human arrangement. And the Commit- 
tee does so find. 


XXVIII. The effect of Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson’s 
teaching and example upon persons who are now mem- 
bers of this branch church is proven to be as follows: (a) 
To promote in a marked degree the moral and spiritual 
progress of the members of this branch church. (6b) To 
free great numbers of them from sickness and sin to which 
they were in bondage previous to their coming in touch 
with her. (c) To enable many of them to acquire such 
an understanding of Christian Science, such a love and 
loyalty to Mary Baker Eddy, and such consecration and 
obedience to God, divine Principle, that they too have 
been enabled to free many of their fellow men from sin 
and sickness in their various phases. (d) To secure for 
those who heeded her teaching and example, present lib- 
eration from previous personal contagion or control, and an 
ever increasing exercise of the freedom of the sons of God 


Lf) 


—those who realize that they are really made in the image 
and likeness of Spirit; and are therefore not material, but 
spiritual; not mortal, but immortal. 


XXIX. First Church of Christ, Scientist, New 
York, is the outgrowth in the main of Mrs. Stetson’s 
efforts toward the establishment of the Cause in this City, 
in co-operation with persons who have been turned by her 
influence and that of her students into the path of Chris- 
tian Science. 


No words seem more appropriate than those in the 
two following letters, one addressed to Mrs. Augusta E. 
Stetson personally, for placing in the corner-stone of this 
building; the other addressed to Mrs. Stetson, Mr. Hat- 
field, and others, when the labors of building this church 
edifice were successfully ended, and the necessity for its 
proper protection had come: 


Pleasant View, Concord, N. H. 
To Mrs. A. E. Stetson: 

Beneath this cornerstone, in this silent, 
sacred sanctuary of earth's sweet songs, peans 
of praise and records of omnipotence, I leave 
my name with thine in unity and love. 

(Signed) MARY BAKER G. EDDY. 

November 30th, 1899. 


81 


Pleasant View, Concord, N. H. 
December 3d, 1903. 

Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson, First Reader; Gentle- 

men, Edwin F, Hatfield, Adolph 

Rusch, William H. Taylor, Steuart C. 
Rowbotham, John D. Higgins: 

Beloved Students—Your telegram in which 

you present to me the princely gift of your mag- 

nificent church edifice in New York City is an 

unexpected token of your gratitude and love. I 

deeply appreciate it, profoundly thank you for 

it, and gratefully accept the spirit of it; but I 

must decline to receive that for which you have 

sacrificed so much, and labored so long. May 

divine Love abundantly bless you, reward you 

according to your works, guide and guard you 

and your church through the depths; and may 

you 

“Who stood the storm when seas were rough, 

Ne’er in a sunny hour fall off.” 
Lovingly yours in Christ, 


(Signed) MARY BAKER G. EDDY. 


32 


In conclusion, your Board of Trustees desires to 
assure the Congregation that at all times the interest of this 
branch church will be fully protected, and that all ques- 
tions which have arisen in regard to the proper practice 
of Christian Science in this branch church, will be finally 
and properly settled, in accordance with our beloved 
Leader, Mary Baker Eddy’s, teaching and practice of 
Christian Science, before the Board of Trustees of this 
branch church ceases to take every possible step for the 
accomplishment of this end. 


(Signed) Epwin F. HATFIELD, 
Chairman. 
(Signed) JOHN FRANKLIN CROWELL, 
Secretary. 
Fer Committee of Inquiry. 


The foregoing report was submitted by said Com- 
mittee to the Board of Trustees on the 4th day of Novem- 
ber, 1909, and duly approved by said Board, and ordered 
presented to the meeting of the Church held on said 
November 4th, 1909. 


(Signed) Epwin F. HATFIELD, 
Chairman of the Board of Trustees. 


(Signed) JoHN D. Hiccins, 
Clerk. 


88 


t 


guy 3 43 
DEC 1250 
WAY2@ 'gp 


JUL 21 


‘a - 
j ee 


Library Bureau Cat. no, 1137 


Dives. 289.5 F5O7R 231,23 
_Report of Board of Trustees 


First Church of Christ, Scientist 


ISSuien TO 


YOE6909E0d 
Pi 


